Well, I know that having RC's can be a problem, and that I'll get people who will decline simply for having them.  But it really irks me when someone declines and then gives a reason that isn't in the RC's  I mean, what the heck??

I requested an electrical code book from a member.  My RC's are:

I will not accept any book with any form of highlighting or underlining on any page, this especially includes textbooks and "how-to" books.

I also will not accept any individual book with a registration number or stamp in it from bookcrossing.com

I will accept books from members who smoke or who have pets.  However, if you use any "illegal substances" please decline this request.  This is not a judgment of what you do in the privacy of your home.  My books often have to pass through security checkpoints and it's just downright awkward when one of the drug dogs catches the scent.

Their reason for declining?  Here:

I got this book from local library sell, its condition is nearly new, but it has markings from library.

WTH?  Where in the above RC's do I even mention library books?  Are they even reading the same RC's I am?  So, I turned off my RC's and requested it again, and sent the following PM:

My requester conditions did not say anything about former library books, so I don't understand why you declined. I have turned off the requester conditions now and rerequested the book.

Normal PBS posting and book condition guidelines still apply however, so please be sure the book meets those conditions before sending it. This is especially true regarding the rules covering highlighting and underlining. Thank you.

If they decline again I'm going to scream...

<end VENT>

Thanks for listening/reading.  :)

Perhaps they assumed that because you don't want bookcrossing markings, you don't want any stamps or stickers at all.  I realize that's not what your RC says, but seeing their response, I can see how they jumped to that conclusion based on the book they had.

I agree with Jenna. Lots of people don't know what Bookcrossing is (even though you provided the link), so they defaulted to the no stamps and stickers part of the RC. However, I might have also declined your RC if I had gotten the book used, since you seem pretty adamant about no illegal substances. I see the reason for your RC and don't have a problem with it, but I wouldn't want to feel responsible if someone before me had contaminated the book.

And if that had been the reason for them declining I'd have had no problem with it Anissa, especially since this is a book that would have been stored in one of my work trucks.

Now I need to decide if I should reword my RC's to cover ex-library books.  I'm hesitant to add more to them because they're already long, and many members will simply decline without reading long RC's, which I suppose is understandable.  It's not easy keeping them short yet still give enough information so they are unambiguous and don't have to be "interperted" by the sender.

Ya know, if they can't understand what your RC's say, they probably wouldn't be able to follow them if they did understand them right.

I think if you have RCs, you've decided It's better to not get a book you want than to get a book you don't want.

They may have interpreted the "I will not accept any book with any form of  highlighting or underlining on any page,"  part to mean that you don't want any kind of marks (library markings included) on the pages.

Ya know, if they can't understand what your RC's say, they probably wouldn't be able to follow them if they did understand them right.

This.

I think your RCs are very clear.  As a very wise person once said:  You can't make anything idiot-proof, as they keep making better idiots.

You could just add "(library markings are okay)" to the line about bookcrossing.

Like someone mentioned, I would go with the thought that they didn't know what Bookcrossing is and if they are like me I don't care if you have a link about it, I'm not going to spend my time looking it up.

BTW...I know what Bookcrossing is and I understand your RC's so, if I had of had the book I would have sent it.

"I think if you have RCs, you've decided It's better to not get a book you want than to get a book you don't want."  UMMMM Nope that isn't even close!!

or add "(ex-library markings are okay)" to the line about not accepting books with highlighting or underlining on any page.

"I think if you have RCs, you've decided It's better to not get a book you want than to get a book you don't want."

No, not at all...  If a person has RCs it's because there are some books that they simply cannot or will not accept.  It's not an either / or and getting a book that meets the conditions shouldn't also require you to accept books that don't.

I wouldn't have sent it to you. With people being the pricks that they are, you have to assume the worst when someone has an RC. They say "one thing" but what do they mean? I just don't take chances on RC's. To much chance of someone trying to rip me off by claming that the book didn't meet the RC.

good luck :-)

Ok,  fairly newish member here.  What does RC mean?

RC means Requestor Conditions.

"With people being the pricks that they are..."

I think that's uncalled for Derrick, and insulting to the thousands of members who swap here every day without any problems at all.

I agree with Bernhard. There is no need for name-calling in the forums.

Derrick - People have every right to have an RC and I don't understand what you mean by "assume the worst" for all RCs. Yes, some are vague or subjective and I would decline those (e.g., "books in very good condition"). But most are very clear (like Bernhard's). As long as the book you send meets the RCs, then you won't be getting ripped off in a transaction.  

ETA: I have three very clear RCs (non-smoking home, no Book Crossings, and no ex-library). I have never had to RWAP a book for an RC violation.

"With people being the pricks that they are..."

I think that's uncalled for Derrick, and insulting to the thousands of members who swap here every day without any problems at all.

I was not just referring to just people here. I was referring to humanity in general. It is not insulting at all, it simply is :-) And why is it uncalled for? Are you judging my view of humanity? Especially when my view isn't impinging on anyone else?

People have every right to have an RC and I don't understand what you mean by "assume the worst" for all RCs. Yes, some are vague or subjective and I would decline those (e.g., "books in very good condition). But most are very clear (like Bernhard's). As long as the book you send meets the RCs, then you won't be getting ripped off in a transaction. 

I agree, people have the right, an obligation almost, to have, and use RC's if they have more exacting guidelines that just the PBS ones. I am NOT disagreeing with that at all! I meant that I take a very dim view of human nature and that if someone can take advantage of you, statistically speaking, they will. So I look at RC's like slots. You just don't know when you'll come up 3 of a kind or when you'll lose out. I'm not willing to take chances on RC's that have anything other than "must include dustjacket" in it. Anything else I feel is like going to Vegas.

I'm not insulting anyone here, really. I'm talking about Humanity in general, and odds and statistics, not Humanity in specifics. As I'm getting to know people here, they go from "In General" to "In Specific" and hence, are no longer a human slot machine in regards to their RC's :-)  Does that help explain my initial post any better?

Derrick I have an RC I think it's pretty straightforward.  If someone can't understand it - by all means decline my request.

Hello Fellow PBS Member,

• Please wrap the book in plastic (any kind) before shipping to protect it from the elements
• Please, send books that are currently in a smoke free environment  

Thanks

Derrick - No one is judging your view of humanity. You are certainly welcome to think whatever you wish. I think what Bernhard and I were objecting to was the way you expressed your views. It was insulting.

Geri, a question arises about your RCs...

I now use poly bubble mailers to send out all my books.  These, by and of themselves are waterproof, but would you still require the book itself to be wrapped in plastic?  I seriously doubt that you'd RWAP for a book that arrived in one of those, but without the extra plastic wrap, but I wanted to ask anyway.

(And, of course, if somehow water still managed to get inside the poly wrapper I'd refund the credit without even being asked, but it's just common courtesy to do that)

Anissa, my intent certainly wasn't to insult you. I apologize if you took it personally...

Derrick, I regret that events in your life have caused you to have such a dim view of humanity.  My own experience has been, and continues to be, quite the opposite.  Yes, the "pricks" are out there, unfortunately you seem to be encountering far more of them than I am.  I will submit to you though, in friendship and in the hopes that we are both adult enough to understand that I do not mean this to be insulting... From the other side of the coin, having someone turn down a request simply because you have RCs, makes you seem like the "prick" to that person.  I doubt this is how you want to be seen by others, and I hope that you take this observation in the spirit it was intended, that of friendly advice, without rancor, ill-will or hidden meanings.

From the other side of the coin, having someone turn down a request simply because you have RCs, makes you seem like the "prick" to that person.

I concur. Which is why in my rejection of RC's that I deem "risky" I simply state "does not meet RC". I don't put it in their face or try to be a jerk about it. People can use RC's, people can reject RC's. And I'm not insulted :-) You made a VERY valid, factual point. 

The thing is, I look at humanity. You seem to be looking at people. That is what I need to do :-)